AMARJIT KAUR AND ORS. versus KARAMVIR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 25-04-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AMARJIT KAUR AND ORS. 
v. 
KARAMVIR SINGH AND ORS. 
APRIL 25, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYA T AND T ARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Reversionary rights-Entitlement to-Sale of suit property/ancestral 
C property by common ancestor of both the parties-Sale challenged by ancestor 
of one of the parties--Compromise decree between the challenging ancestor 
and vendee-Ejfect of compromise decree on the reversionary rights of other 
heirs/other party on death of common ancestor-Held: Reversionary rights 
of other heirs was not affected by the compromise decree-The property 
D alienated reverted to the estate of alienor at the poinl of his death and all 
the persons who would but for the alienation. will be entitled to inherit the 
same. 
•A', common ancestor of the appellants and respondents had sold the 
property in dispute to 'B'. 'J'-ancestor of the appellants filed a suit for 
E declaration that the sale was without consideration and legal necessity. The 
suit when reached in appeal to High Court, was decreed declaring that the 
sale would not affect the reversionary rights of' J'. In appeal to this Court, a 
(:ompromise was arrived at between 'J' and 'B' and the property was 
relinquished by 'B' after accepting a particular amount from 'J'. However, 
F the declaration regarding reversionary rights was not modified. Appeal filed 
by 'B' was dismissed. 'J' got the mutation sanctioned in his name in relation 
to the entire land. Respondents filed a suit for declaration that the mutation 
was not correct and had no effect on their rights as they had acquired 17/24 
share in the suit land as reversioners on death of• A' and the compromise 
decree of this Court was not binding on them as they were not parties to the 
G compromise. The suit was decided against the respondents/plaintiffs. First 
appeal was decided in favour of the respondents. However, second appeal was 
dismissed by High Court as no question of law was involved. Hence the present 
appeal 
H 
228 
-
AMARJIT KAUR v. KARAMVIR SINGH [PASA Y AT, J.] 
229 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Since there was no modification of the terms of the 
declaration that the sale would not affect the reversionary rights of'J' after 
the death of' A' which in fact would mean that the property in dispute would 
be inherited by all the heris of'A'. (232-B-Cj 
Giani's Ram v. Ramjilal, (1969) 1SCC813, relied on. 
1.2. Effect of such a declaratory decree is merely to declare that by the 
sale interest conveyed in favour of the alienee was to ensure during the life 
time of the alienor. The property alienated reverted to the estate of the alienor 
A 
B 
at the point of his death and all persons who would but for the alienation will C 
be entitled to inherit the same. (234-C-D) 
2. A bare perusal of the order of this Court while recording the 
compromise shows that the rights of the plaintiffs was kept intact by 
dismissing the appeal of 'B' against them. If 'J' had spent any money as D 
claimed, that is a matter of adjustment when the actual allotment is made. 
(234-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4366 of2002. 
From the Final Order dated 8.2.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and E 
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A No. 2550/2001. 
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Ms. Apama Rohatgi Jain, Mahesh Kasana and K.B. 
Rohatgi for the Appellants. 
P.C. Jain, Sucha Singh, Amit Talwar, R.K. Talwar and S.L. Aneja for the F 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of 
judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High 
Court at Chandigarh in second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of G 
Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:-
One Ajit Singh was a common ancestor of the appellants and the 
respondents. The respondents as plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration t<> H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A the effect that they are owners to the extent of 17124 share in the I 07 Kanals 
and 2 Marlas of land, out of 151 Kanals 5 Marlas of land in dispute which 
had been allotted to their common ancestor Ajit Singh at the time of 
consolidation. Ajit Singh was a man of full vices, a spend-thrift person and 
had sold his land to one Bishan Singh without consideration and legal 
necessity. Joginder Singh, ancestor of the present appellants I to 5 and 7 had 
B filed a suit for declaration that said sale was w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.